| Volume 194, Page 753 View pdf image (33K) |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
29 CAR. 2, CAP. 3, STATUTE OF FRAUDS. 753 as in Clay v. Yates, 1 Hurl. & N. 73, where the contract was to print a book at so much a sheet, including paper, the cause of action is for work and labour, &c. It will be observed that the words of this section are stronger than in the 4th section, and contracts not made according to its provision are held to be entirely void, per Bosanquet J. in Laythoarp v. Bryant, 2 Bing. N. C. 747. Sale* at auction—Sale* of animal*—Shares of stock.—Sales of goods at auction are within this section, Kenworthy v. Schofield, 2 B. & C. 945, and see ante n. to s. 4.128 And though the Statute only mentions goods, wares and merchandise,129 it includes a contract for the sale of horses, and, of course, other cattle, as appears from Elmore v. Stone, 1 Taunt. 458, and a contract for the sale of growing crops, if to be delivered as chattels, see ante n. to s. 4, and Watts v. Friend, 10 B. & C. 446.130 It is also held here to include sales of bank stock, Colvin v. Williams, 3 H. & J. 38;"1 but the English authorities are to the contrary, see Humble v. Mitchell, 11 A. & E. 205; Heseltine v. Stiggers, 1 Exch. 856, where it was clearly held, that a contract for the sale of stock, exchequer-bills, and securities of that description, in which the property passes by delivery, differs from the sale of a specific chattel, inasmuch as a contract for the sale of stock, &c. would be* satisfied by the delivery of any 553 stock, &c. of the description bargained for, and consequently the contract for sale cannot mean an actual sale, but only a contract to deliver, and therefore is not within this section of the Statute. But contracts like in Cobbold v. Caston, 1 Bing. 399, where there was an agreement to procure coals at B. and convey them to J. at a price agreed on, need not be in writing. With respect to the price of 10 (., (a pound being by law four dollars and eighty-four cents), it is settled that in ordinary sales where several articles are ordered successively at the same time, each of which is under the value of 10;. but which together exceed in price that sum, it is one entire con- tract, Baldey v. Parker, 2 B. & C. 37; it is otherwise, if the party take time to consider of one article, Price v. Lea, 1 B. & C. 156. But at auction sales, the purchase of each lot is considered a distinct contract, Emmerson v. Heelis, 2 Taunt. 38.132 The price of every commodity is an entire thing also, and cannot be divided into as many payments as there are considerations included in the price, and so a contract for a sale of goods, at a higher price on account of the vendor engaging to deliver them, is within the Statute, and is not a mixed contract for the carriage as well as sale of them, Astey v. Emery, 4 M. & S. 262; see also Harman v. 128 See note 57 supra. 129 A contract to bequeath personal property is within the seventeenth section of the Statute. Hamilton v. Thirston, 93 Md. 218. As to fix- tures see note 63 supra. 180 See notes 65, 66 and 126 supra. 131 Overruled in Webb v. R. R. Co., 77 Md. 92. But see now sec. 22 and the definition of "goods" in sec. 94 of the Sales Act of 1910, (Code 1911, Art. 83, secs. 25, 97). 132 See the Sales Act of 1910, [Code 1911, Art. 83, sec. 42 (2)]. |
| |||
|
| ||||
|
| ||||
Please view image to verify text. To report an error, please contact us.
Alexander's British statutes in force in Maryland. 2d ed., 1912
| Volume 194, Page 753 View pdf image (33K) |
|
Tell Us What You Think About the Maryland State Archives Website!
|
An Archives of Maryland electronic publication.
For information contact
mdlegal@mdarchives.state.md.us.
Maryland State Archives